Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple themselves say G5 upto 117% Faster than Intel 3.6Ghz

You all make legit comments and the truth is none of us will know until they come out. I just feel that over the next two years we may see the number go up (2.7 -> 4.7 Ghz Intel or whatever happens) But i don't know what speed increases we'll get.

I want Apple to get Ati and Nvidia to port some good graphics cards over, rather than worry about the G5. G4 powerbooks are fast enough.
 
SpaceMagic said:
Apple's site also benchmarks against dual xeons.. if you actually click the link. In two years time Intel may be at 4.6ghz.. PPC could be at 3.2... 3.2 still being faster than dual xeons 4.6ghz!
Click to expand...

Well... the thing is intel has already said that the P4 won't pass 4GHz. But, whats on the map is that once the P4 reach their max, intel will just add more cores. Which I think is very interesting... because after a while speed dosn't really matter... it about raw power and performance... which can easily be achieved by adding more cores.
 
edwin.bossier said:
This simply proves that with benchmarking you can proof anything and nothing and you can steer the results the way you want them to be by playing with the parameters.
Click to expand...

That may be true to a certain extent, but notice that Apple never touted its PowerBooks against Pentium-M computers. They would have been blown away, no how much they tweaked the stats.
 
Diatribe said:
That's exactly what I think.
Click to expand...

I think indeed similar

I think Intel can make 64bits processors that run cooler & in the end that's what apple wants, everything 64 bits in all of their systems so the next OSX might be just 64 bits??

why do they switch? as Steve showed: no 3Ghz G5... no Pb G5 and I think the no Pb G5 has the overweight here... & I think because Intel is doing great (yes AMD is too I know that :p) & can produce a lot & quite fast that's important too... remember the waiting in the beginning of the release of the G5?? IBM couldn't keep up... and that hurts sales...


I will repeat this over and over: sales sales sales: that's the core buisness of every buisness ;)
 
Jo-Kun said:
I think indeed similar

I think Intel can make 64bits processors that run cooler & in the end that's what apple wants, everything 64 bits in all of their systems so the next OSX might be just 64 bits??

why do they switch? as Steve showed: no 3Ghz G5... no Pb G5 and I think the no Pb G5 has the overweight here... & I think because Intel is doing great (yes AMD is too I know that :p) & can produce a lot & quite fast that's important too... remember the waiting in the beginning of the release of the G5?? IBM couldn't keep up... and that hurts sales...


I will repeat this over and over: sales sales sales: that's the core buisness of every buisness ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly.
I can only repeat it, I'd take a 2.1GHz Pentium M with PCI-Express over my current G4 any day. By the time they get put into Powerbooks they are probably up to 3GHz already, which would almost be as fast as the current Powermacs. Now think about IBM being ever able to do something like that.
 
Diatribe said:
Exactly.
I can only repeat it, I'd take a 2.1GHz Pentium M with PCI-Express over my current G4 any day. By the time they get put into Powerbooks they are probably up to 3GHz already, which would almost be as fast as the current Powermacs. Now think about IBM being ever able to do something like that.
Click to expand...

I have a gut feeling that at the next Expo for whatever we'll see Apple pre-release iBook Pentium M's and Powerbook Pentium M's as well. They might not be available until Fall 05, but I really think that starting to sell the dev kits ASAP.... just makes me think they're farther along than we think with this, and that, after "3.0 GHZ in a year" steve wants to get something done ahead of time-- So "having intel macs in the channel by 2006" certainly leads me to think "product announcements in 2005." And iBooks and PowerBooks are surely key products.

Just my $.02
 
One thing to remember here is that the switch to Intel, and by default to the x86 archetecture, opens some more doors for Apple. AMD is committed to making faster and better x86 compatible chips, in direct compitition with Intel, which is good for us. If AMD continues to make those great A64 chips, and eventually transition to a dual core A64 (haven't they already?) there will be nothing stopping Apple from using them (from a technical stand point, I am sure they have some agreements with Intel to fulfill).

With the PPC you had IBM doing work on the G5 and Freescale G4, but that's it. They don't have anyone else out there saying "hey I can make a faster, cheaper product that is 100% compatible with yours!"

Also, the PC market doesn't have a ton of room for very high end, expensive machines. Wintel users haven't shown the overwhealiming desire to plop down $3000+ on a new computer. (Some) Apple users, however, are used to it. We may have a chance to grab up the newest, fastest Intel products first, as there is a proven market of people willing to pay the premium for Macs that would be required to sell some of the more innovative and expensive chips.
 
Moxiemike said:
I have a gut feeling that at the next Expo for whatever we'll see Apple pre-release iBook Pentium M's and Powerbook Pentium M's as well. They might not be available until Fall 05, but I really think that starting to sell the dev kits ASAP.... just makes me think they're farther along than we think with this, and that, after "3.0 GHZ in a year" steve wants to get something done ahead of time-- So "having intel macs in the channel by 2006" certainly leads me to think "product announcements in 2005." And iBooks and PowerBooks are surely key products.

Just my $.02
Click to expand...

That is very possible. It would be interesting to see them do the laptops first, and not unexpected, as that's where they are the most beind. I still think the initial reports of a mini based on the P-M are more likely, tho. Get something out quickly that is fast, cheap, and still stylish, stable, easy to use, etc, and they may sway the doubters with it.

Releasing an iBook built on that same platform, and a Powerbook with upgraded specs shortly after (like 3 months or so) is my next guess. After people see the mini as fast, compatible, good value, etc, they will be willing to plop down a little extra money for a new portable.

Plus, bringing the mini out first will help, as it will (hopefully) sell well and get more Intel machines out there to convince developers this will work. Also, I would bet a lot of mini users use MOSTLY software that is already going to be available for 'Universal Binary' release. iLife, iWork, Office, Photoshop (Elements mostly), Safari and Mail (of course), etc. The change in CPU will be completely transparent to them.
 
The other thing to remember is that THERE IS NO EASY ANSWER. On the one hand, switch processors---and get the mess that WILL be coming. On the other, stay with PPC--and be saddled with an indifferent manufacturer, a growing MHz gap, particularly in key markets such as portables, and increasing engineering problems stemming from the first two problems.

Sucks to be faced with those two alternatives.
 
mrgreen4242 said:
That is very possible. It would be interesting to see them do the laptops first, and not unexpected, as that's where they are the most beind. I still think the initial reports of a mini based on the P-M are more likely, tho. Get something out quickly that is fast, cheap, and still stylish, stable, easy to use, etc, and they may sway the doubters with it.

Releasing an iBook built on that same platform, and a Powerbook with upgraded specs shortly after (like 3 months or so) is my next guess. After people see the mini as fast, compatible, good value, etc, they will be willing to plop down a little extra money for a new portable.

Plus, bringing the mini out first will help, as it will (hopefully) sell well and get more Intel machines out there to convince developers this will work. Also, I would bet a lot of mini users use MOSTLY software that is already going to be available for 'Universal Binary' release. iLife, iWork, Office, Photoshop (Elements mostly), Safari and Mail (of course), etc. The change in CPU will be completely transparent to them.
Click to expand...

Eggggggggggs-actly. :)

I'm with you 100% I think by end of 05 we'll see announcements for minis, ibooks and powerbooks. And maybe minis in the store though I think the ibook might be more plausible for schoolyear 2005 sales.

either way, this is definitely an interesting time in appledom
 
I'm glad Apple is accidently teaching its base a lesson: Apple is a business.

Sorry fellas.
 
SpaceMagic said:
Look at this:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Now please explain to me why Apple want to use Intel processors. Apple themselves quote that a Dual 2.7 is 98% faster than a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4, the very same CPU in their dev kits!

Why is it, in two years time, we're going to be a step backwards! I want to run Xbench on these Intel PowerMac dev kits!
Click to expand...

If you believed apple, you're a sucker for marketing hype. The G5 is good at some things, but anyone who actually believed that the fastest G5 was generally faster than the fastest P4's wasn't paying attention. x86 chips were killing them, particularly on the lower end of the market (when the pro line is barely over 2 ghz when budget PC's come that fast, its not a good thing). Intel is the right move here, definitely the right move in my opinion. IBM didn't have a lot of interest in pushing the powerpc family for desktop computers, freescale doesn't either. intel does and if apple uses intel, they could also use AMD in the future if they wanted, so real competition is opened up for the first time.

Face it, Intels chips are just faster than the G5 and it was only going to get worse. Now there's no more catchup, no more being an apologist for the slower performance of a mac by saying it was about the OS. now it really is about the OS, and apple can compete on an equal footing.

I'm excited about the move and think it will work out a LOT better than the naysayers fear.
 
Moxiemike said:
Eggggggggggs-actly. :)

I'm with you 100% I think by end of 05 we'll see announcements for minis, ibooks and powerbooks. And maybe minis in the store though I think the ibook might be more plausible for schoolyear 2005 sales.

either way, this is definitely an interesting time in appledom
Click to expand...

Hmm, lets see... Intel (Celeron-M would be my guess) mini announced in Jan at MacWorld, start shipping in maybe early February. Slip some new PowerBooks based on the absolute fastest P-M chips available out around May. Take the PB line from probably the slowest overall in the high end laptop market to the fastest, in everyway. Fastest CPUs, state of the art mobile GPU, lots of RAM, big HDs, fast DVD burners standard on every model. Have iBooks based on the same platform as the new mini (with some speed bumps maybe) in stores no later than May 31.

Put the eMac back to school only sales, and they have phased out the G4 completely. Which is good, it was a nice chip, but it's a dead platform. The G5 has some steam left in it, though.

Wait till next year when Intel reveals their Pentium4^2 (that's Pentium Four-Squared) or whatever they want to call the dual core chip based on the P-M that the yare going to ditch the P4 for to move the iMac over to Intel, followed by the low end (single CPU) PowerMacs, and the release a dual core dual chip PM.

Speaking of PMs, anyone else think we will see this chip in the first Intel PM?

Intel Xeon MP (Paxville) is expected to be released in Q1. Paxville is the 90nm, Dual Core successor to Tulsa, featuring a twin 1066Mhz FSB (one for each core).
Click to expand...

Dual core with independent 1ghz FSBs wouldn't be a bad place to begin.
 
G5 Forever

I do respect and understand Apple's decision, but I do regret that a potential better chip design has 'lost' de race. At the same clockspeeds G5's are considerable faster. ( That's why Apple preferred IBM in the first place, Intel is only second choice ) Like Apple had Markler 'in case of', I hope that future versions of OSX will be available for G5's, 'in case of'.

Suppose, suppose IBM would introduce a 970MP within a year! :eek:

Personally I will buy a dual G5 (2 Ghz) soon, and will keep it running until it breaks. The Real PowerMac. Don't write the G5 completely off yet.
 
SpaceMagic said:
Now please explain to me why Apple want to use Intel processors. Apple themselves quote that a Dual 2.7 is 98% faster than a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4, the very same CPU in their dev kits!
Click to expand...

Also, because in 2 years time, IBM has been unable to deliver a 3.0GHz design of it's 970 chip. Apparently Intel has no such problems and will most likely be able to deliver faster and faster (and cooler/lower power consumption) chips over the next 10 years.
 
And remember, almost every time apple some out with something, ipod, shuffle, mini perhaps too, OS X, every one and every critic said it was sucha bad idea. BUT it always turns out to be the opposite. which other apple projects have been criticized but turned out to be awesome?
 
jayscheuerle said:
Portables are the key. They've overtaken desktop sales. Small powerful devices are waiting for small cool chips with long battery lives. G4s are too hot for this.

The huge desktop box is no longer a focus for Apple.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about the Mini too.

Big surprise that Apple sells a ton of Minis?
Small/Sexy + low (realistic) price = Sales.

P-M/Celeron-M Mini's wouldn't be so bad. And I still think Apple should expand their Mini lineup to 3; the 3rd being able to house ordinary HDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back